TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Need a lawyer....
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by cammaxwell I assume they also informed you that you were breaking the law by refusing too, and explained what was going to happen right?

I was wondering the same thing....

quote:

Originally posted by VDub Good point... If they didn't you'd most likely be in the clear..

you would have to wait to receive disclosure before you can see if he did or didn't, it will be in his notes..

also every single lawyer will tell you that they can do it, make sure you go to the one that is recommended by a person who was in a similar situation and that lawyer helped him/her, it also helps if that lawyer frequently has dealings with that particular court meaning that he may know most of the prosecutors well..

quote:

Originally posted by geroin that lawler

quote:

Originally posted by FunkyCrew

ahh fuck hahah

I heard you have the right to refuse one because you cant be forced to submit evidence to the court.

My friends dads was once a big time establish lawyer in canada until he passed away 5 years ago and said something along those lines. I could be wrong or have heard wrong but i guess it depends on how the question was asked about the test.

Maybe Lisa can clarify...

If she's sobered up from her bday weekend that is...

best of luck w/ the case dude.

sadly speaking from experience even with a lawyer you will still plead guilty to certain degree.

there is no way fully out of it, just like there is no reason to drive 50+km/h over lol , there is no reason for refusal.

the dues and punishment will certainly be less if you go with a lawyer as lawyers actually work for city believe it or not.

plus the cop does not have to show up to court even if you request it all he needs to do is submit his notes.

htm i got pulled over onces for headlights, and cop asked have you had a drink i said sure i had two beers couple hours ago never had to take a breath-lizer how ever i did have to tow my car back home.

the way i see it... be nice to cops and it'll turn out alright as they have to deal with ppl like you a lot more then with ppl like me so they are more likely to go easier on you.



just my $0.02

Note to drinkers: Never drink and drive - it's not worth it.

Second note to drinkers: It's always easier to defend a "refusal" charge than it is to defend an "over 80" charge.

Edit: Fuck...this was Lisa

quote:

Originally posted by TrAnCeiN4LiFe sadly speaking from experience even with a lawyer you will still plead guilty to certain degree.

Not really, you just need a better lawyer.

-Lisa

before you hire a lawyer, make sure you check up on any tribunal decisions made against them in the past: http://www.lsuc.on.ca/regulation/a/discipline/

there are some insanely corrupt lawyers around. do not trust them if something feels off or they aren't 100% open about exactly what they are doing for your case.

just tell the courts you had cock breath and were afraid they would find out.


but in all honest, i had no idea that refusal was so bad. i would think that it wasn't as bad. but definitely the cop should have explained the meaning of refusing over just blowing into the machine.

quote:

Originally posted by iant56 Note to drinkers: Never drink and drive - it's not worth it. Second note to drinkers: It's always easier to defend a "refusal" charge than it is to defend an "over 80" charge. Edit: Fuck...this was Lisa

lisa knows! so maybe it is not as bad as you all think.

quote:

Originally posted by StereoPrincess just tell the courts you had cock breath and were afraid they would find out. but in all honest, i had no idea that refusal was so bad. i would think that it wasn't as bad. but definitely the cop should have explained the meaning of refusing over just blowing into the machine.

if the penalty for refusing to take the test was lower than blowing over the limit...then no one who had been drinking would ever agree to take the test

it's a driver's responsibility to know the rules of the road. I'm pretty stunned at how many people didn't know this one! (hopefully you all don't drink and drive though...so you'll never find yourselves in this situation in the first place).

quote:

Originally posted by TrAnCeiN4LiFe the dues and punishment will certainly be less if you go with a lawyer as lawyers actually work for city believe it or not.

What do you mean by that? That lawyers work for the city?

quote:

[i][b] plus the cop does not have to show up to court even if you request it all he needs to do is submit his notes.

Yes, the officer does if it goes to trial. You have a right to face your accuser and ask questions, in Canada you have the right to a fair trial.

quote:

Originally posted by iant56 Second note to drinkers: It's always easier to defend a "refusal" charge than it is to defend an "over 80" charge.

I would think it's actually harder to defend a refusal charge. With a DUI you can argue several things like equipment failure, invalid test results, ect...

With a refusal, what can you argue?

i hear this guy is good.

http://www.bettercallsaul.com/

quote:

Originally posted by smuncky i hear this guy is good. http://www.bettercallsaul.com/

LOL....

quote:

Originally posted by smuncky i hear this guy is good. http://www.bettercallsaul.com/

"I once convinced a woman I was Kevin Costner... and it worked! Because I believed it."

quote:

Originally posted by cammaxwell I would think it's actually harder to defend a refusal charge. With a DUI you can argue several things like equipment failure, invalid test results, ect... With a refusal, what can you argue?

I don't know, I've never done it myself. But my boss from Windsor (I work for a criminal defense lawyer) has said it, and his former boss (naturally, also a criminal defense lawyer) has said the same thing.

I have very rarely encountered arguments such as "equipment failure" or "invalid test results" for DUIs. Unless the equipment actually fails - which it usually doesn't - that argument would be useless. Arguments are more like "the driver's conduct was not a marked departure."

If you don't blow, they don't have an over 80 result to have to deal with, and they have a harder time proving you're drunk.

-Lisa

Edit: Although I'm not a lawyer (yet, hehe), the best advice I could give would be that if they ask for a breath sample, say you want to speak with a lawyer first. Although this is not an absolute right (as you may not have been arrested yet, there is recent case law that says that if you're required to take a breathalyzer you should be allowed to speak to a lawyer first). If they don't, that's possible grounds for excluding the breath sample at trial. If they do, by the time you take the sample, your blood alcohol level will have gone down.

However, I still stand by THIS advice: DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE!

yeah i believe you can take different kinds of tests at the station, if you have asthma or there's some other reason why you can't blow into the thing properly

if you're borderline you'll probably be fine by the time they can administer a different test. if you're smashed, it's nobody's fault but yours...

quote:

Originally posted by iant56 ... If you don't blow, they don't have an over 80 result to have to deal with, and they have a harder time proving you're drunk. -Lisa Edit: Although I'm not a lawyer (yet, hehe), the best advice I could give would be that if they ask for a breath sample, say you want to speak with a lawyer first. Although this is not an absolute right (as you may not have been arrested yet, there is recent case law that says that if you're required to take a breathalyzer you should be allowed to speak to a lawyer first). If they don't, that's possible grounds for excluding the breath sample at trial. If they do, by the time you take the sample, your blood alcohol level will have gone down. However, I still stand by THIS advice: DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE!

they don't have to prove your were drunk...this is not a DUI charge. this is an entirely separate charge for failing to provide a breathalyzer sample.

I would be very curious to see this case law of which you speak, whereby the right to speak with an attorney prior to giving a sample was successfully used in court. if that were the case, would it not essentially render the law unenforceable?

damn double post...

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT they don't have to prove your were drunk...this is not a DUI charge. this is an entirely separate charge for failing to provide a breathalyzer sample. I would be very curious to see this case law of which you speak, whereby the right to speak with an attorney prior to giving a sample was successfully used in court. if that were the case, would it not essentially render the law unenforceable?

I used my words poorly, I shouldn't have said "drunk". You're right, they don't have to prove you're "drunk" per se, but there are different drinking and driving offences (i.e. blood alcohol over 80 - what I was referring to when I said "drunk"; impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample).

I don't know the case off hand. I'll try to ask the lawyer at the office that specializes in drinking and driving charges tomorrow. As I stated, the right to a lawyer is not absolute here, it depends on the circumstances (i.e. if you're arrested, you have the right to a lawyer; if they're just asking you for a breath sample, you can ask for a lawyer, but it's not a guaranteed right b/c they haven't arrested you; but if they are requiring you to provide a sample, depending on the circumstances if you ask for a lawyer and they say no the sample COULD be excluded as a charter violation...it really depends on the case.) That's why it doesn't render the law unenforceable, it depends on the circumstance.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.